No, more likely my fault for explaining my argument so poorly. (never like to blame things on the dog
), L. Also since I'd asked the Smallville question, I thought you were answering it, which I know now was not the case.
What I was trying to suggest, though, was that given the wide-open definition of canon that we've arrived at, that a Smallville fic wouldn't really violate any L & C canon as long as we label it as an Elseworld or Alt-fic or Early Years. Just as we have fics in which Clark can't fly or Perry is not an Elvis fan, etc which may appear to contradict canon, they don't really as long as they are slotted in the appropriate category.
As well, If a well developed argument in a story can justify any premise (as you argued in your second last post, L. ) why wouldn't that also apply to a Smallville or an SR premise whether that premise be about characterisation or about factual details from the series?
As for Lois's fish, I had to mention that point because it reminded me of the delightful fish stories on the archives. (Jana's, and Anna's)
But I'm not sure I was trying to prove any argument with that particular point.
Anyway, I used to think I knew the difference between a Smallville fic or a SR fic and an L & C fic, but now, not so sure I can pinpoint the difference and so I was looking for explanations. Am pretty sure it has something to do with canon but....
Also am now very confused about why characterisation isn't also canon. If we can consider behaviour to be OoC (as L mentioned in her second to last post) then we must have some sense of 'canon charcaterisation' to reach that conclusion, otherwise we can't say something is OoC because we have no reference point. I think this perhaps underlies Karen's post (although I may be misreading Karen).
Can anyone explain?
c.
